South Dakota Politics

VDH

Victor Davis Hanson:

Watching and reading the recent Washington punditry, whether in print or on television, is a depressing spectacle. Almost all—Charles Krauthammer is the most notable exception—have somehow triangulated on the war, not mentioning why and how in the B.C. days they sort of, kinda, not really called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. For some the Road to Damascus was the looting or Abu Ghraib, for others the increasing violence. Still more now say the absence of WMD did the trick.

But almost none of the firebrands of 2003 speaks the truth behind the facade: They supported the war when it looked like few casualties and a quick reconstruction and thus confirmation of their own muscular humanitarianism—and then bailed along the way when they realized that wasn’t going to happen and the unpopular war might instead brand them as “war mongers”, “chicken-hawks” or just fools.

Instead of that honest admission, we get instead either cardboard cut-out villains of the “my perfect three-week war, your screwed-up three-year occupation” type—a Douglas Feith, Gen. Sanchez, or Paul Bremmer—or all sorts of unappreciated and untapped brilliance: from trisecting the country to “redeploying” to Kurdistan, or Kuwait, or Okinawa?

Perfect Campaigns and Historic Elections

To Master Heppler's excellent post on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and Professor Schaff's learned reply, I would add this:  it is wonderful that the U.S. had such a perfect campaign, and it will be even more wonderful if we never have one again.  The Civil War did not follow the Lincoln-Douglas debates by accident.  The forces that were tearing the Union apart made the debates possible.  Without those forces, we would never has suspected the greatness of Lincoln or Douglas, or even the greatness of our own Republic.  Moreover I concur in part and dissent in part with regard to this from Master Heppler's post:

The outcome, in the long term, couldn't have been any better.  True, the election of Lincoln was all the South could withstand and they left the Union, leading to the Civil War.  But secession had been in the works long before his election.  In the long term no one can deny that Lincoln was the perfect choice.

Lincoln was indeed the perfect choice, but precisely because secession was not necessarily "in the works."  President Douglas might well have avoided it, by surrendering the most fundamental principles of the Republic.  The Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Dred Scott decision, and Lincoln's subsequent election as President, caused secession and secession caused the war. 

To get a perfect campaign you need a perfect storm of political forces in which the very survival of the Republic is at stake. That is something that no one should wish for.  Give me wishy-washy candidates and muddled issues every time.  I am reminded of the shrewd Chinese curse: "may you live in interesting times."

It's step on Epp day, here at SDP

Ever since Jim Seeber and I interviewed the Aberdeen Chief of Police concerning the Morgan Lewis case, and wrote a summary of that interview for the American News, Todd Epp has been calling us the "NSU Hardy Boys."  Now I am not sure whether Todd is still angry with us for daring to ask questions about something neither we nor the public are qualified to think about, or whether he just can't afford to let go of his one clever idea this year.  But I confess I have been looking for a comparable epponym for the good lawyer.

While breezing through Sioux Falls this morning on route to God's Country, I saw that Mr. Epp had given me one.  This from the Argus Leader:

Two area lawyers and an Augustana College academic delved into the murky waters of comparing George Orwell's book, "1984," and post 9-11 America and examining individual freedoms Thursday night.  . . . Todd Epp, a Harrisburg lawyer, political consultant and writer, said the book's three slogans - war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength - fit the Bush administration. The first slogan is mirrored in U.S. foreign policy, and the last matches the Cabinet's actions of keeping the public and press at bay to benefit the government.

So our "Harrisburg Lawyer, political consultant and writer" now deems himself a professor, qualified to comment on literature.  Welcome to the profession, Professor Epp, Doctor of Thinkology. 

But before we conclude that the scarecrow's hat does not just enclose straw after all, let me point out the argument above is absurd.  A reasonable person may well conclude that the Bush Administration policy is eroding civil liberties, though this reasonable person would disagree.  No reasonable person could suppose that the newspeak slogans of 1984 "fit" this or any other administration.  If Bush cannot control the New York Times, if he is in serious danger of losing control of the House to Nancy Pelosi, there is not the most remote fit between Bush and Big Brother.  It seems that liberals cannot even imagine real totalitarianism, except as a brush to tar their opponents with.  Orwell could imagine it.  So can I.  Herr Docktor Epp is clueless. 

Dear Todd

I did not say you could not disagree with Martin Albl without being prejudiced.  I said you could not dismiss him without being prejudiced.  Those are two different things.  The first takes his argument seriously, the second does not.  "Prejudice" means to "judge" based solely on passion and without reason.  But Martin has reasons, not just passion.  But then Todd gives the prejudiced reply, stating that there is no other ground for opposing same-sex marriage other than pure prejudice.  That is someone who is dismissing Martin rather than thinking about what he writes.  Todd can't believe anyone could possibly have reasoned himself to a position that same-sex marriage is bad for society.  That person must be a bigot. It must be nice to never have to argue with one's opponents, who are proven wrong simply by the fact that they disagree with hip progressive opinion. 

To reject an opinion as "from the Dark Ages" without supporting arguments is dismissive.  An opinion is not false because it is old; nor is it true because it is new. 

Does the difference between male and female end with genitalia?  Is there really no such thing as masculine and feminine nature?  Plenty of smart people say no, but common sense (and plenty of social biology) suggests otherwise.  If there are differences between men and women that go beyond different body parts, then does it not make sense to say that there may be "motherhood" and "fatherhood" in addition to the generic "parenthood"?  We are not arguing about what happens in this or that household, but what is generally true.  It isn't just crazies like Albl and Schaff that say this. For example, it is iconoclastic leftist Christopher Lasch who argues in The True and Only Heaven that the idea that men and women are the same is a "sentimental fiction" (pg 36) in service of a radical progressive ideal.  BTW, different, it should go without saying, does not mean unequal. 
Todd then falls into the solipsism of "whatever I choose is good."  There are two ways to judge a choice.  Some say a choice is good because it is freely chosen.  Others say a choice is good because of the content of the choice.  Similarly, some say decent liberal society can thrive irrespective of the character of the people.  Others say that decent liberal society needs people of certain character, for example people who are able to control their passions.  It is a truism to say that people who are not capable of governing themselves are not capable of self-government.  Todd seems to think that all a society needs to hold it together is a radical commitment to equality and "choice," damn the consequences and damn what is being chosen.  The logic of his argument is that a society can be indifferent to the character of its people and to the character of the family, the institution most crucial to the formation of individual character. 

Again, there are really smart people who agree with Todd.  But the best of them do not casually dismiss their opponents' arguments as mere prejudice.   My argument here is not that Martin and I correct, although obviously I think we are, but to suggest that there are actually reasons behind our arguments.  As I said, to disagree with Martin is not prejudice, so long as one has reasons of one's own.  To simply dismiss a thoughtful and well intentioned argument as simply being the product of prejudice requires a profound lack of self-knowledge.

Senator Johnson

I was honored to have lunch with Senator Johnson today.  He is up in Aberdeen this weekend to do some community outreach and political work for his party.  Today he was on campus.  About 40 of us were in the room and I was honored to sit next to Sen. Johnson at our table for lunch and then introduce him to the room when he got up to talk.  He talked about budget matters and how they will be resolved depending out the election's outcome.  If the Dems take over, budget matters will be delayed until January when they are in control.  If Republicans retain power, an omnibus bill will likely be passed in a December lame duck session.  Sen. Johnson obviously prefers the former scenario to the latter.  He took questions, of which I think readers will be interested in two.  First, Iraq.  I think I can fairly sum up Sen. Johnson's argument as being that our military presence in Iraq, whatever its original merits, is not longer serving much good.  We should take the next 12-18 months to scale back our military commitment.  He said at one point that we should not "chaperon their civil war."  He said much more than this about Iraq, but this, I think, is the gist of it.  I find his arguments compelling. I asked him to talk about what is going on with the Farm Bill. Sen. Johnson answered as follows.  The current bill runs out next September.  He is concerned about how much funding there will be, especially for conservation programs like CRP (about which I had specifically asked).  I believe he said 80% of CRP contracts run out next year.  The money and conditions might not be there to make renewal attractive to farmers.  Interestingly he talked about how the Farm Bill is linked with free trade talks.  The current round of WTO talks might result in significant reductions in price supports and direct commodity subsidies.  But that might mean more money for conservation. Sen. Johnson called it going from the "amber box" to the "green box."  I assume that metaphor means less money for grain subsidies (amber) and more money for environmental protection (green).  I don't how that would effect ethanol. I assume very little as that is being subsidized on different principles than other agriculture programs (i.e., we are paying for energy, not corn).  Overall, he said the next farm bill will look much like the last.  Anyhow, it was a pleasant event.  Oh, and he really dislikes the Bush tax cuts!

Historic Races

I am intrigued by Jason's post on the "perfect campaign."  I suggest no such thing has ever existed. We invent a golden age when politics was high minded and thoughtful, but that golden age, like most golden ages, never existed.  First, let's remember that the Lincoln-Douglas debates took place in the 1858 Senate race in Illinois, not the 1860 presidential race.  What is remarkable about those debates from our point of view is their reliance on long, complex arguments.  In modern debates a long answer is ninety seconds.  Lincoln and Douglas sustain arguments of ninety minutes during their debates.  But the lower arts of politics did combine with this higher art.  For example, race baiting was a tactic used by Douglas.  I am drawing from memory, so forgive me if my facts are off a bit, but I believe it was the debate at Cairo (pronounced kay-row), which is in the deep south of Illinois (i.e., you might as well be in Kentucky) that Douglas pointed out that the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass had come to the debate in Freeport to support Lincoln.  Stephan Douglas made sure to point out that Frederick had ridden in a carriage accompanied by a white woman.  His southern Illinois audience got the point. 

In the 1860 presidential, as was the case in all presidential races until the 20th Century, none of the candidates (with the exception of Douglas) actually campaigned.  Lincoln never left Springfield.  The campaign was run through surrogates.  And it wasn't as if those surrogates were shy about defaming their enemies (remember that Republicans were often called "black Republicans"). 

Modern technology and the rise of interest groups has made the art of negative campaigning more noticeable.  And the ideological polarization of the parties has bred a fresh harshness in our politics.  But we should not dwell in the illusion that there was a point in our history when our politics was defined by great statesman who campaigned by presenting brilliantly argued speeches to the masses.  The Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, which do represent democratic politics at its best, are not free from low politics.  But even if we forgive their infrequent descents into the political nether regions, the L-D debates are by far the exception, not the rule, of American campaign history.

Some Quick Hits

Just some quick political hits:

Look out for a KELO-Argus Poll that will show Gov. Rounds ahead by at least 20 points. 

Here is Martin Albl on why Amendment C (definition of marriage) is a sound amendment.  I appreciate Martin's ability to take hot button issues and discuss them in a logical and thoughtful manner.  You can disagree with him, but unless you are wrapped in prejudice you cannot dismiss him.

Here is a Los Angeles Times piece that suggests that if the Democrats take over Congress it will be because they are running a lot of moderate to conservative candidates.  For example, isn't it interesting the if the Democrats succeed in knocking of their Senatorial nemesis Rick Santorum, and it looks like they will, it will be by running a pro-life/pro-gun Democrat.  And look at Harold Ford in Tennessee.  It is hard to get to his right on abortion, gay marriage and Iraq at this point. 

The Perfect Campaign

Oscar Chamberlain over at the history blog Cliopatria wonders if the United States has ever had something close to the perfect presidential campaign:

My question to you is this: has there ever been in the US something close to the perfect presidential election campaign? My definition of “perfect” echoes our original republicanism. I mean that the candidates were strong, the debate meaningful, and the outcome not too bad.

I'd like to take up the challenge.  My choice is a period covering from 1858 to 1860, events that presaged and later took place during the presidential campaign of 1860: Abraham Lincoln versus Stephen Douglas.

Abraham Lincoln was from the "western" state of Illinois and was nominated by the new Republican Party (which replaced the Whig party after their collapse over the slavery issue).  In 1846, Lincoln was elected to the House of Representatives as a Whig.  He is probably best remembered in this capacity as an antiwar activist.  He spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood."  He also frequently challenged Polk's claims as to the boundary of Texas.  He retired shortly from politics to pursue a career as an attorney in Illinois, but was drawn back into politics after Stephen Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which effectively abolished the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Stephen Douglas, also of Illinois, ran on the Democratic ticket.  Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 espoused "popular sovereignty" as a means of removing the slavery issue from national politics.  Constructed as an alternative to the more extreme solutions of direct federal control or blanket protection of slavery, the doctrine left the decision to the inhabitants of the territories.  He was twice considered for the presidency, once in 1852 and again in 1856.  In 1857, Douglas broke with President James Buchanan, leading to a fight for control of the Democratic Party.  Some eastern Republicans favored the reelection of Douglas in 1858, since he led the opposition to the administration's push for the Lecompton Constition, which would have admitted Kansas as a slave state.  Needless to say, Douglas lost the support of the Southern Democrats but increased his favor in the North.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates, which took place for the Illinois Senate race in 1858, were perhaps the finest example of this oral tradition in American history.  This was the democratic process at its finest.  The quality of these debates is what is important.  Instead of an hour of sound-bite exchanging in an empty studio, Lincoln-Douglas debates were huge public affairs, were extremely detailed, and went on for three hours.  Patrick Fairburn notes:

[Lincoln and Douglas] engaged in 7 debates spread over a period of 7 weeks, from August 21, 1858 to October 15, 1858 in these Illinois cities: Ottawa, Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton. Attendance estimates ranged from a low of 1,500 in Jonesboro to a high of 20,000 in Galesburg. The average was about 15,000 very vocal folks at each town. The format never varied. The first speaker spoke for one hour; his opponent for the next 1 ½ hrs; and then the starter finishing up with a half hour.

These are the kind of debates we need today.  Given how civic-minded South Dakota is, certainly thousands would show up to the debate like this.  When Dakota Fest holds debates at least a thousand people arrive.  Why?  Because they realize how badly television distorts politics.  The great social critic Christopher Lasch, whose final book was entitled The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, wrote in his chapter "The Lost Art of Argument":

The Lincoln-Douglas debates exemplified the oral tradition at its best. By current standards, Lincoln and Douglas broke every rule of political discourse. They subjected their audiences (which were as large as fifteen thousand on one occasion) to a painstaking analysis of complex issues. They spoke with considerably more candor, in a pungent, colloquial, sometimes racy style, than politicians think prudent today. They took clear positions from which it was difficult to retreat. They conducted themselves as if political leadership carried with it an obligation to clarify issues instead of merely getting elected.

These great 19th century traditions were much better for democracy than the image-shaping, television smiles, sound-bites, gimmicks, and gesture politics of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Lincoln went on to win the election, carrying 1,865,908 votes (39.9%), Douglas had 1,380,202 (29.5%), John Breckenridge of the Southern Democrats had 848,019 (18.1%) and John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party had 590,901 (12.5%).   

The outcome, in the long term, couldn't have been any better.  True, the election of Lincoln was all the South could withstand and they left the Union, leading to the Civil War.  But secession had been in the works long before his election.  In the long term no one can deny that Lincoln was the perfect choice.  Compared to other possible Republican nominees, Lincoln was seen as a moderate.  His loyalty to the strength of the Union and the reconstruction of the South after the war (compared to some who wished to see the South implode) certainly shaped our political climate for years to come.  His unflinching opposition to slavery led to freedom for slaves.  In July 1862 Congress passed the Second Confiscation Act, whose goal was to weaken the rebellion and free slaves not under Union control.  This did not abolish the legal institution of slavery (which didn't occur until the 13th Amendment was passed) but did show Lincoln had the support of Congress in liberating the slaves.

The presidential campaign between Lincoln and Douglas exemplifies the near perfect campaign.  Both candidates were strong in their own regards, engaged in debates on a level the nation hasn't experienced in some time, and the outcome in both the short- and long-term were exceptional.

UPDATE:  Welcome Cliopatria readers!  Feel free to drop us an email and weigh in.  Also be sure to check out the responses by Prof. Schaff and Prof. Blanchard.  I'm working on a reponse to them as well.

Woman Kills Bear

I want some of this action in South Dakota.  This is one mean ass baby sitter, and evidently a pretty good shot. 

Blogging from Bloomington 3

What comes first: politics or war?  Answer: war, at least according to one panel I listened to this morning.  Out of 72 cases where tribal societies began to organize politically for the first time, that is, a hierarchy of authority emerged with chiefs, soliders, and subjects, in all but three cases it was a response to frequent attacks by less organized outsiders.  For those of you who like big government, it is interesting to note that we probably wouldn't have government at all if it weren't for our chimpanzee like tendency to form a group so we can rush and beat the snot out of some other group. 

I picked up a copy of the MIM Notes in the Indiana University student union.  That's Maoist Internatioalist Movement.  It has articles like " New Generation of Amerikan Lackeys and Opponents."  At the website you can download Mao's writings.  I do not hesitate to point out that Mao Tse Tung was probably the single most successful serial killer in human history.  He murdered well over one hundred million of his fellow Chinese.  That, I think, exceeds the death toll for the second world war.  I quote from Wikipedia: "MIM was founded in 1983 from a group called RADACADS (for "RADical ACADemics") at Harvard/Radcliffe University."  You just about have to have a Harvard degree to be this stupid, or wicked, or both. 

No on #2 and #8

The American News comes out against Initiative #2 (tobacco tax) and #8 (cell phone tax). 

Wanna Join Me In Chicago?

Joe Knippenberg is trying to put together a roundtable on blogging for the 2007 American Political Science Association meeting in Chicago, August 2007.  Yes, you do have to plan this far ahead for the APSA.  Read Joe's invitation here.  In particular he is looking for some left leaning bloggers who might want to join such a roundtable.  Incentive: I used to live in Chicago.  I know the good restaurants. 

New Link

We get word from the SDMM people that our link to their response to Larry Long might not be working.  Try this link here. 

More on Four

This is what I love about the blogosphere: it gives us the chance to debate, discuss, and give readers a chance to hear from both sides and also have the option to weigh in.  Earlier this week Attorney General Larry Long sent us an email explaining his opposition to Initiated Measure 4, the legalization of medical marijuana.  Neal over at SDMM now has a point by point response to AG Long's email. 

We report, you decide.

Iraq

With Election Day inching closer and closer, Iraq is becoming a major campaign centerpiece.  I support the War in Iraq and our troops for many reasons.  However, this line by Senator Thune clearly and succinctly says one of my primary reasons for my support of the War in Iraq and the larger Global War on Terror:

Thune said many people are comparing Iraq with Vietnam, but in Vietnam, "they didn't follow us home," Thune said. "This is absolutely a war we have to win."

Here's a link to the article in the Jackson Hole Star Tribune.  Aside from the poor writing skills of the reporter (Thune said...Thune said.), this is a great line.  I truly believe that if we cut and run, they'll chase our troops home and attack our homeland in any way possible.

Blogging in Bloomington 2

I presented my Plato and Darwin paper this morning.  It was politiely received.  I got more questions from the audience than the other presenters, which means I won.  After a day of panel watching I joined I a gaggle of political scientists pretending to be biologists at Nick's, a perfect college hang-out with low hanging lights and a buffalo head on the wall.  They served a local microbrew called Dragonfly IPA that was just about good enough to move to Bloomington for. 

It turns out I am leaving two days to early to see Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister of Israel who will be speaking on campus here.  I am leaving one day too early to see the Gay Miss Bloomington Pageant.  That would be a hoot. 

Speaking of hoots, I think Professor Schaff nails the medical marijuana inititiative down.  It's legalization under another false pretenses.  I am voting no, but then I was voting no anyway.  I mean like, man, it's not good for this state, man, to ... what was I talking about?

I was ready to vote no on Amendment C until the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to rewrite the constitution of the the garden state.  I don't think our state court would such a thing, but maybe the other state court's of this land might need a message that the marriage laws should be written by the legislature and not by judges. 

Rural Economy

Madison Daily Leader:

Rural economies are improving, but a labor shortage is restraining growth, according to an October survey of bank leaders in a nine-state region that includes South Dakota.

...

Retail sales remained weak in October, as large retailers in trade centers pulled customers from a wide area, the report said.

The bankers' outlook for the next six months jumped to 61.8, its highest since May, from 43.6 in September and 37.5 in August.

That confidence is sparked by the Federal Reserve not raising interest rates, lower oil prices and improvements in agricultural commodity prices, Goss said.

"Higher grain prices have been good for farmers, who had a good harvest," said Joe Kennedy, CEO of First National Bank in Frankfort, Kan.

The index for loan volume in the rural areas dropped significantly, to 58.8 from September's 76.9.

The home sales index in the nine states rose slightly from 35.5 in September to 36.4, the survey found.

Bankers in all states except Kansas reported October job gains, but nearly 79 percent of bankers said a lack of labor is having a negative impact on rural business growth.

A Canticle For Liebowitz

I recently finished the sci-fi classic A Canticle For Liebowitz.  I post one passage:

The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they seemed to become with it, and with themselves as well.  They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier for them to see that something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow.  When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it.  But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.   

Contra Heppler (Kinda)

I don't have time to do a thorough response to Jason's thoughtful post, but one reason to support Amendment C has just occurred in New Jersey.  While it is not clear exactly what this ruling means, it certainly is one step towards judicially imposed same-sex marriage.  See Ed Whelan for more on the New Jersey ruling. 

It seems to me that Amendment D will have the effect of raising the cost of real estate.  It will create a disincentive for people to sell property because they will then likely see a big increase in their property taxes.  The supply of property on the market will thus shrink, creating a housing shortage, raising the price for everyone.  Amendment D seems very similar to the (in)famous Prop. 13 in California which is one major contributor to their exorbitant cost of real estate. 

Referred Law 6 has been talked to death.  I doubt many minds are changing at this point.  I post an email from a reader:

I agree that far too many people do not take personal responsibility for their personal actions, in all aspects of life, but if we can save a few human beings from being tossed in the trash can then we have done a good thing. Some will go to Minnesota or elsewhere to get rid of their “problem,” but if our law forces a few to pause and rethink their choice, then a few more individuals will be around to enrich our lives.

#4, Again

Yesterday I posted some inchoate thoughts on Initiative #4 (medical marijuana).  We got a response from Attorney General Larry Long which, with his permission, I reproduce here:

I also oppose Initiative # 4.  My objections are based upon the text of the measure.

 

First, #4 requires a "debilitating medical condition"  which includes ugly stuff like cancer, glaucoma, HIV and AIDS.  BUT, it also includes any "condition which causes chronic pain".  (So, your old football injury, back ache, or trick knee or arthritis may qualify)

 

Second, #4 does not require a physician's permission or prescription to qualify.  A copy of the "patient's medical records" will suffice.  (In other words, you present your medical records to the Dep't of Health with the words "patient complains of chronic pain" highlighted in yellow and  DOH is required to issue to you a registry ID card allowing you to smoke pot.) 

 

Third, if you qualify, you are allowed to possess 6 pot plants and one ounce of usable pot.  You may smoke this pot anywhere it is legal to smoke tobacco.

 

Fourth, you may also appoint a "caregiver" who is anyone age 18 or more and not your Doctor, who will agree to look after you.  There is no requirement that you are in need of "care".  Your "caregiver" may also possess 6 pot plants and one ounce of pot.  However, it is quite likely that your "caregiver" will light up with you, because both you and your "caregiver" are immune from prosecution of any kind.  Section 11 of #4 says:

 

  "No qualifying patient or caregiver who possesses a registry identification card issued pursuant to this Act may be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized in any manner, or be denied any right or privilege" . . . 

 

Therefore, as a practical matter the patient and his "caregiver" can light up pretty much whenever and wherever they please with out legal sanction. 

 

Fifth, #4 allows children to become "qualifying patients" if they have the "chronic pain" condition in their medical records and their parents permission.  Again the physician is bypassed.  The parent must certify to the DOH only that the parent "heard" a physician explain to the parent and the child the dangers of smoking pot.  The parent automatically becomes the child's "caregiver" and is responsible for the "dosage' administered to the child.  (how convenient)

 

The procedure in Measure #4 is designed to bypass physicians almost entirely.  The patient is allowed to self-diagnose and self-medicate.  The whole idea of a "caregiver" (unless the patient is bedridden) is simply designed to allow the patient to "medicate" with one of his buddies.  This measure (if it becomes law) will be an enforcement nightmare.  Irrespective of the policy reasons for or against "medical" marihuana, this is a bad piece of legislation and is designed to allow the general population to smoke pot and be immune from legal sanction of any kind.    This bill is horrible public policy.

I find Mr. Long's arguments convincing.  Eddie?

Update: I just noticed Eddie has responded to yesterday's post, here.  This, by the way, is how the blogsphere works at its best.  I make arguments and Mr. Long and Eddie respond intelligently and you all get to decide.  I think Attorney General Long has the better of the argument, but I thank Eddie for making his argument forcefully and respectfully.  Except when he says my position "stinks," proving that Eddie is a poop head (That's a joke, man). 

 

The $2.6 Billion Campaigns

Financial Times: "Next month’s midterm elections will be the most costly congressional races in US history, with business interests contributing three-quarters of the estimated $2.6bn that will be spent, says a non-partisan research group."

Blogging in Blooming Bloomington

Three parts Hoosier, one part Wheat-grass extract.  I am in the Indiana Memorial Union, a hotel built onto the Student Center here at Indiana University.  It's rather strange to walk down the hotel hall and find students knapping on the funiture with biology books drapped across their knees.  There is also a local Tibetan community and two Tibetan Buddhist Monasteries.  The Dali Lama, I have been informed, was here twice.  I ate at The Snow Lion, a Tibetan restaurant, shortly before being informed that there is no such thing.  Tibetans eat liver and mutton mixed up with barley.  You can't sell that in America.  So they offer Indian and East Asian goodies. 

While I was in there I listened to a wild-eyed Democrat on the other side of a carved screen talk about her divorce and how exciting it was to meet Birch Bayh.  Bayh was a U.S. Senator from Indiana who ran for President in 76 but got beat badly by Jimmy Carter.  How does that feel now?  He was swept out of office when Reagan was elected.  The lady behind the screen said that Bayh was energetic and asked lots of questions.  I believe he is the same age as my father. 

Maybe the Democrats are about to make a sweep of their own.  If you are up for a shot of fortitude, this piece from the New York Post might do the trick. 

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

How I'm Voting

Given the other comments from my colleagues, I figured I should weigh in as well on our lengthy ballot.  Again, be sure to read through the South Dakota Ballot Voter Guide (pdf alert) put out by the state.  Comments and counterarguments are certainly welcome.  If you disagree, send us an email explaining why and see if you can convince me otherwise.  If you think I'm wrong, either by getting facts wrong or just think my conclusions are wrong, please email us.  I encourage my colleagues to do the same.  It will help me as an educated voter if I'm corrected sooner rather than later.  If I have the time I'll respond to reader emails on this blog.  I've tried to keep these concise.  And be sure to continue reading about the issues and do your part as an informed voter.  So, here we go:

Amendment C
Allows further restrictions on gay marriage, civil unions, etc. and defines marriage between a man and a woman
I agree with defining marriage to be between a man and a women, but I disagree with complete intolerance towards homosexuals--I have no problem with them being in unions and being together.  Unfortunately this position brings up a number of other arguments about child adoption, polygamy, etc., but those are topics for a later post (in short, I think children are better off under a traditional family structure).  South Dakota statute already defines marriage between a man and a woman.  As I understand it, this amendment would put the statute into the state Constitution.  That said, I'm voting no on this because the state has already defined marriage.  There's no need to clutter our Constitution with this.

Amendment D
Property tax reform--assessment of land is based on acquisition value, increases the cap to 3% except in cases of reclassification, sale, addition, improvement, or destruction.
I'm leaning yes on this one.  If I understand the current law, property taxes depend on the value of the land around you.  If you buy a piece of land at a cheap price, your tax on that land will be cheap.  But if a neighbor moves in and builds a $1 million house next to you, thus increasing the value of the land, then your taxes will increase even if you've done nothing to improve your own property.  This tends to put financial pressure on retirees, farmers, and low- and middle-income workers.  They shouldn't be priced out of their property by their wealthier neighbors.

Amendment E
“JAIL” Amendment, which will create a special grand jury to hear appeals and punish judges, elected officials, and jurors for malfeasance
No.  Every public official and citizen on juries would be eligible to lawsuits by anyone dissatisfied by a verdict.  This has the potential to stagnate the courts either by litigation or the fear of litigation.  This measure would give too much power to the special grand jury that has no check on its power by any branch of our state government.

Amendment F
Constitutional revisions
I agree with my colleague on this one, I'll be voting yes.  There are a host of changes to Article III of the state Constitution under this amendment, mostly meant to clarify.  The removal of Congressional term limits will square our Constitution with federal court rulings.  One concern for me was the increase in the legislature's authority to set its own rates for expense reimbursements, which could mean digging deeper into public funds, but considering our legislators only meet for two months out of the year I think we can watch them and check any greedy legislators.  The legislator also will wield more power to act in emergencies, which is fine with me.  Remember Katrina and the bureaucratic mess that was?  If there's an emergency, I'd prefer they have the authority to act rather than fumble around a legal technicality.

Initiated Measure 2
Increase the tobacco tax
No.  Why?  Read below.  Plus I worry about a tall tax.  I mean, if someone is willing to propose an anti-Communist law, then just maybe . . .

Initiated Measure 3
Mandate no school before August 31
No.  This is a local control issue, not something the state needs to mess with.  Each community sets the start date for the school year and it should remain that way.   They go through the school board and if they don't agree with them, they can refer it to a vote.  There's no reason for a statewide law.

Initiated Measure 4
Legalize medical marijuana
I don't feel strongly one way or the other with this one, but I'm leaning toward yes unless someone convinces me otherwise.  I'd prefer that medical professionals determine what is good for their patients, not the government.  However, passing this law entails a cautionary note: I do not want this to lend itself to total legislation, as Prof. Schaff wrote below.  Although it might be preferable to include some tight restrictions on this measure (ie, ensure that marijuana in general does not become legal), I still think it's all right to pass it for medical purposes.

Initiated Measure 5
Restrict the use of the state plane to state business without exceptions for the governor or state law enforcement officials
This is a pointless measure based on an Argus Leader campaign to discredit the governor.  I'm voting against it.  If Gov. Rounds goes joyriding in the state plane, it won't be kept a secret in this state.

Initiated Measure 7
Repeal video lottery
No.  We have voted on this three times already and it's been rejected every time.  It may be bad to fund government through video lottery, but to just outright eliminate it is a bad idea.  The state receives huge amounts of money from gambling.  I think what's needed for this to work is a complete tax system overhaul.  Plus, gamblers have a right to make their own decision on what to do with their money.  Be sure to read Prof. Schaff's thoughts below.

Initiated Measure 8
Repeal wireless telecommunications tax
No.   This is nothing more than a measure pushed by out-of-state interests, in this case Verizon Wireless, who paid $115,000 to round up signatures for the petition to get this on the ballot.

Referred Law 6
Complete ban on abortions
I'm voting no, as I've explained before, because this is bad public policy (not because I support abortions).  I don't understand how this law is going to fix the problem.  What's at stake here is to reduce abortions, right?  Wrong.  Banning them won't fix it, it only pushes the problem out of South Dakota.  The number of abortions is not the problem; the reason for the abortions is.  Individuals fail to take personal responsibility regarding this issue.  Our society today tells you that you can do anything, get away with anything, and be guilt-free.  The problem isn't the number, but rather the idea.

To clarify my position, I believe that life begins within minutes of conception, a belief that's based on science, not faith (although they can often intersect).  The egg and sperm carry twenty-three chromosomes, the DNA that encodes a unique human.  When the sperm fertilizes the egg, the separate DNA strands combine into twenty-three pairs and a unique blueprint for a unique human being is created.  When the cell divides on its own, usually within a half hour, that being is alive, unique, and separate from its mother.  Thus, our DNA and genetic composition is a fact.  Cell division demonstrates life, as any biologist will tell you.  For me, what to do with that life is a matter of values rather than faith.  The question we face is whether to sacrifice that life as a matter of convenience.  Yet throughout the history of Western civilization we have enacted laws, constructed families, and developed moral and social structures to protect young lives.  The devaluation of innocent life is a dangerous precedent.

Those who support abortion either defy science and fail to recognize life at this stage, or simply ignore the question in order to focus on the "right to choose."  Yet by logic this argument supports a freedom from personal responsibility that I mentioned above.  The choice was already made because of a failure to use contraceptives or avoid the action altogether; a pregnancy is a result of poor choices.  Apparently some segments of our society wish to act as children and take no responsibility for their decisions.

The Governor Calls Special Session for November

The Argus Leader reports that Governor Mike Rounds is calling for a special session to investigate the misconduct of Dan Sutton:

Gov. Mike Rounds will call a special session to investigate allegations of misconduct between a state senator and a teenage legislative page, the governor’s office announced Tuesday.

The decision to call the Senate into special session on Nov. 27 came after the state’s four leading senators – two Republicans and two Democrats – sent Rounds a letter on Friday asking him to bring the Senate into session.

The four senators asked for the session to investigate allegations that Sen. Dan Sutton, D-Flandreau, groped a page who was staying in his hotel room during the last legislative session.

HT to Plains Politics.

Initiative #4

Eddie asks for some opinions on Initiative #4 legalizing medical marijuana.  Truth is I have no strong opinions either way.  But Eddie asks, and he shall receive.  I oppose the initiative for the following reasons. 1. I don't support the initiative process and so my default setting is to vote "no" on all of them absent some compelling reason to do otherwise (note that the initiative process has some important differences from constitutional amendments and referendum).  2. I'd feel a lot better about  medical marijuana legislation if I didn't think it was the first step to total legalization.  In general one would think that if a doctor can proscribe morphine he should be able to proscribe marijuana.  But I suspect that for many, medical marijuana is just a way to get around our laws against the substance. 

It is a technical case that I don't claim to have mastered, but Eddie seems to allude to Raich v. Ashcroft/Gonzalez.  I think this case was wrongly decided (as does Eddie, I assume), but I wouldn't stake my reputation (such as it is) on my position. 

As I say, I don't have strong feelings on this matter and would appreciate Eddie telling me why I am wrong. 

By the way Eddie, the proper salutation for me is "His Eminence."

Amendment F

The American News, fresh off its endorsements of Mike Rounds (can't find the link) and Stephanie Herseth, asks voters to vote "no" on Amendments E and F and initiative #3 (school start date).  Yesterday I mentioned my support for Amendment F.  The people I talk to in state government tell me that Amendment F is a necessary amendment to correct some discrepencies in the law and to modernize our legislative process a bit.  Vote yes on Amendment F. 

The Argus Leader Double Standard

South Dakota War College calls out the Argus Leader for applying a double standard by printing "rumors" about Republicans but spiking "rumors" about Democrats:

Here's the irony - the Sutton allegations were swirling around in the amosphere at the same time that the Sahr allegations came out, if not before. Every reporter had likely heard the sets of rumors on both, and (at the time) each had about as much substance. You had rumors of allegations, and rumors of supposed investigations.

So, given the same amount of information available for each, someone please explain why the Argus decided to tank one candidate over another? Why did they torpedo Bob Sahr's relection, and give Dan Sutton a bye? It certainly can't be because of an anonymous, unsigned letter?

Fast forward to today. Bob Sahr has been effectively driven from office and there's still no more information out there then when the Argus started it's hatchet job. For Sutton, there's a special session of the legslature pending, a paper trail regarding the senate inquiry, witnesses set to testify, and no lack of available information.

Clearly, one was picked over the other. It was the Republican who they decided to sacrifice over a few allegations.

It's not like the Argus doesn't have a long history of vendetta against Republicans. Their clashes with Bill Janklow are legendary. They've been on an a more that two year campaign against our current Governor.

Pagegate Triggers Special Session By Legislature

From the Argus Leader:

Legislative leaders have asked Gov. Mike Rounds to call a special session to investigate allegations that state Sen. Dan Sutton behaved inappropriately with a teenage page.

Subpoenas could be used to force people to testify during the session, which would begin on Nov. 27.

“I don’t think we’ve been through anything like this in the state’s history,” said state Sen. Ed Olson, a Republican from Mitchell.

The request was delivered to the governor’s office on Friday, according to Mark Johnston, a spokesman for the governor.

Olson, who is the chief operating officer of the Legislature when it’s not in session, said the idea is to have only the state Senate called into the session because the House isn’t involved.

Olson said he will request the session be closed to protect the privacy of witnesses.

“There’s no way in heck I would ever condone deposing an 18-year-old kid” in public, he said.

Rounds plans to meet Tuesday with South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long to discuss details of such a session.

The two intend to “coordinate and discuss the request,” Johnston said.

The session would be fair to all involved, Olson said.

“Fairness is the key operative word here,” he said.

For more on this story, see Tuesday’s Argus Leader.

Report from the Road

I am in Sioux Falls tonight, on my way to Bloomington Iowa for the annual meeting of the Association of Politics and Life Sciences (Apples, as we call it).  I am presenting a paper on Platonism and Darwinism.  I am trying to persuade my grad school buddies that Darwinism is in fact on the side of classical philosophy, and a lot of other folks in lab coats that classical philosophy ought to be taken seriously.  I am going to fail on both counts. 

I note my colleague's posts on ballot questions and I agree with his recommendations.  I would only add to his No on #2 post that if it passes, we should propose a tax on ugly people.  Granted Professor Schaff and I would end up paying it.  But having shed a few pounds recently, I guess I will escape the coming tax on fat people.  Moreover I am thinking that tall people consume altogether too much headroom and resources.  Think how much energy we can save if ceilings were a couple of feet lower?  I am safe when we pass a tax on tall people. 

Dow Continues to Surge

From the Associated Press:

Wall Street extended its October rally Monday as investors grew more optimistic about upcoming earnings reports and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said it will cut capital spending to drive overall returns. The Dow Jones industrials shot up more than 110 points and crossed 12,100 for the first time.

Generally upbeat reports have instilled a new confidence about the future in investors, and allowed them to lay down some bets about the future just half-way through third-quarter earnings season.

...

Blue chips resumed a three-month rally after stalling Friday; the Dow briefly surpassed 12,100 and reached a new trading high of 12,117.95, eclipsing the old mark of 12,049.51 set last week. Broader market indexes also gained, shrugging off concerns about the Federal Reserve's decision on interest rates later this week.

"The picture being painted is pretty easy to suggest that the pressure on the economy from higher oil prices is easing," said Richard E. Cripps, chief market strategist at Stifel Nicolaus. The price of oil, which fell to lows for the year Friday from its mid-July highs, is making investors more bullish on sectors like retail, which stand to benefit if consumers have more spending money.

In midday trading, the Dow Jones industrial average rose 110.22, or 0.92 percent, to 12,112.59. Blue chips passed 12,000 for the first time last week.

Broader stock indicators also surged. The Standard & Poor's 500 index rose 8.71, or 0.64 percent, to 1,377.71, and the Nasdaq composite index rose 17.71, or 0.76 percent, to 2,360.01.

This seems appropriate:

Daschle Backs Off Run for President

Argus Leader: 

He also demurred on a possible run for president.

“I haven’t made any decisions, any announcements,” he said. “I think there’s a big field out there ... and it’s going to be exciting to see what’s going to happen.”

I think it's too bad we won't see Daschle making a presidential run.  Thought I don't always agree with him politically, it would still be exciting to watch his campaign unfold.  But I also think that Obama's announcement that he's considering a presidential run pretty much means the end of the Daschle-for-president gambit.

UPDATE:  Our former Senator also has some thoughts on candidates for the 2008 presidential race [UPDATE: Here's the link]:

Daschle: Democrats will pick up seven U.S. Senate seats
MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press

...

He also demurred on a possible run for president.

"I haven't made any decisions, any announcements," he said. "I think there's a big field out there ... and it's going to be exciting to see what's going to happen."

Daschle visited the politically pivotal states of New Hampshire and Iowa earlier this year to discuss a possible run with voters there.

In the interview Monday, Daschle downplayed the prospects of some potential Democratic opponents.

On Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who said Sunday he is considering seeking the nomination, Daschle said it's "appropriate" he's thinking about a run.

"I think because of the tremendous amount of enthusiasm and support that Sen. Obama has around the country, you'd be foolish not to give it some very careful thought ... And I hope he does make a very thoughtful evaluation of whether a race at this point makes sense or not."

He said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is not a lock for the nomination.

"I think even Sen. Clinton would tell you that she is not, she is not a candidate yet, and it's hard to say," Daschle said. "I don't think anyone has a lock on it."

No On #7

Initiated Measure #7 would repeal the state's video lottery.  I wish that we did not have video lottery.  Were in not already in existence I would not vote to introduce it.  But it is here and it generates a great deal of revenue ($112 million, according to the Attorney General's ballot explanation).  To remove this level of revenue without any plan to replace it is irresponsible.  Removal of video lottery should be part of comprehensive tax reform.  Both the video lottery and the sales tax on food and clothing are taxes that take far more from the poor than the rich and middle class.  These should be repealed and replaced with a progressive income tax.  This way the state could raise adequate revenue in a more just manner.  While I agree with the goals of Initiative #7, it deserves to lose.

Update: An emailer inspires me to make it clear that I oppose video lottery, but I do not think #7 is the way to get rid of it. 

No On #2

Why vote no on Initiated Measure #2, aka the tobacco tax?  First, it is a regressive tax that falls heavily on the poor.  Second, one of the defenses of the measure, that it will reduce smoking, is an argument in bad faith.  If supporters of this initiative really wanted to stop smoking they would propose a $50 per pack tax.  The truth is they want some people to smoke; how else do they plan on raising the millions of dollars they claim this law will generate?  This is not about reducing smoking.  If that was the case the ideal revenue from the tax would be zero.  This is about taxing an unpopular (and relatively poor) minority.  Finally, if we take the health argument seriously, this is the kind of moral imposition that many of our citizens on the left usually denigrate.  Who is the state to tell us that we must maintain healthy habits?  Smoking is a vice that we are all better off not developing, but it is a private vice.  Contrary to anti-tobacco claims, smokers are a net benefit to the public coffers.  Because of our punitive taxation on tobacco, smokers pay more in taxes and they also have the good graces to die earlier than others so they are not recipients of public dollars (e.g., Social Security) as long.  This is nanny state politics. 

In Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America he discusses the various punitive laws of the Puritains of early America.  He thinks many of these laws are quite silly, and this is the capper: "Sometimes, indeed, the zeal for regulation induces him to descend to the most frivolous particulars: thus a law is to be found in the same code which prohibits the use of tobacco."

Update: Chad responds.  I will just note that if saving lives is so important, why don't we ban smoking?  It is nanny state when the government punishes us for doing things that are personally unhealthy but have minimal public costs.  Also, I have no doubt that many people who so support #2 are well intentioned, but I still say they are misguided.  I guess when it comes to smoking, Chad is anti-choice. 

Know Your Ballot Questions

Some thoughts are in order regarding the many ballot questions that South Dakotans will encounter on Nov. 7.  First of all, voters should take the time to read the Ballot Question pamphlet put together by the Secretary of State's office.  I have found it a valuable resource.  I have been surprised how many people have asked me where they can get information on ballot questions.  The link above is excellent.  The paper copy should be available at your county courthouse. 

I predict virtually all these ballot questions fail, with notable exceptions.  The default for most people is to vote "no" in ballot questions.  They find the language confusing, so they vote for the status quo.  I suspect the tobacco tax (Initiated Measure 2) will pass as smokers are an unpopular minority and everyone likes raising taxes on someone else.  I doubt any other measures will pass although some have a better chance than others.  If Referred Law 6 passes then one presumes Constitutional Amendment C also will.  I think Amendments C and F have merit as does Referred Law 6 (although none of the three is problem free).  Everything else on the ballot deserves to lose, in my opinion.  Contrary opinions welcome. 

CNN

Cliff May: "What would Ernie Pyle of any other great, war correspondent of the past think of CNN’s decision to air video showing snipers targeting U.S. troops in Iraq?"

If you're wondering what the outrage is about, here's the story:

CNN's decision to air a video showing snipers targeting U.S. troops in Iraq provoked both rage and praise yesterday, with some calling it a brave move by the cable network and others labeling it a propaganda coup for terrorists.

...

CNN said it obtained the video through contacts with the Islamic Army of Iraq, a Sunni-led insurgent group that has carried out numerous suicide bombings and kidnappings.

The tape provides a sniper's-eye view of the protracted war. During one portion, an enemy sniper and a spotter target a U.S. soldier standing atop a parked Humvee along a crowded street.

A crack is heard and the televised image goes black.

A second later, the soldier is shown slumping in the Humvee's turret, apparently taken down by a single bullet from a rifle. The footage is so murky that it's unclear who the soldier is or which branch of the armed forces he is with.

CNN said it did not know exactly when or where the gruesome tape was made, but that its experts had determined it was not a fake.

The video's airing comes at a time of growing concern over enemy snipers in Baghdad. U.S. military officials say snipers are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their tactics.

On the video, male Arabic voices can be heard as the sniper and spotter talk off-camera.

“Allahu Akbar (God is Great)!” one of the voices exclaims after the soldier in the Humvee is shot. A vehicle carrying the sniper then slips away.

NYT Flip Flop

The New York Times flip-flops regarding the report of the SWIFT program:

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.

...

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program.

Michelle Malkin wonder's why this isn't on the front page.  Ed Morrissey has some more observations, including this nugget:

Instead of acting as Chief Apologist, Calame should take his job a little more seriously in the future. The Times blew an important national-security program just to pump up its anti-Bush credentials, regardless of the fact that the program operated within the law and never abused the information it gathered. Calame dislikes the administration as much as the rest of the people at the New York Times, and in the guise of detached analysis endorsed the publication of a non-story in his zeal to undermine the White House using any means at their disposal. Everyone else knew that this story had no merit; it took the Times and its public editor four months to figure it out.

That should tell you everything you need to know about the New York Times.

Indeed.

UPDATE:  More from Watertown native John Hinderacker.

UPDATE II:  More on the New York Times' SWIFT flip flop from Tom McGuire.  Bill Quick also writes: "This is an especially telling admission from the Times 'ombudsman,' who, in theory at least, is supposed to be the most objective journalist in the Times organization. But a 'vicious criticism' (what? did GWB forget to call you the world's greatest newspaper?) is enough to warp your objectivity enough to print a story that did major damage to the safety and security of the United States?"  Meanwhile, Eugene Volokh is trying to figure out what was so "vicious."

The Real Scandal

From an SDP reader in Renner:

I see that SDP has been discussing how quick the Argus Leader was to report and undermine Bob Sahr, a Republican, and how the blogs have exposed how the Argus Leader had all the information about "rumors" about Dan Sutton the Democrat and hid them.  That's the real scandal.  The Sutton thing will be resolved after an investigation, but who will hold the Argus Leader accountable for deliberately tanking Republicans while trying to let Democrats off the hook (until the Argus was exposed by the blogs)?  Probably nobody will hold them accountable, and the whole group of liberal leaders at the Argus like Chuck Baldwin-Pat Lalley-Dave Kranz-Pete Harriman will continue to run the paper like they are the agitprop coordinators of the SD Democratic Party.  Does anyone take the Argus that seriously?  Especially after their laughable transition to a "new Argus," which almost everyone agrees stinks.  People who work at the Argus say privately that the response has been uniformly negative to the new format.  Will the Argus Leader report that?  Or will they just run a letter opposing the format and one praising the format here and there and pass that off as "objective"?  If the Argus really reported reality they'd have to concede that the "new Argus" format was a flop and that they tanked Bob Sahr while trying to let Sutton off the hook.

Alcee Hastings

Instapundit:

CLARICE FELDMAN HAS MORE on the goings-on at the House Intelligence Committee.

And a reader notes this bit from Michael Barone about Jane Harman:

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is said to be determined to replace her with Alcee Hastings, the former federal judge who was impeached by the House for bribery and convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

Call me crazy, but is someone who was impeached and removed for bribery a good choice for leadership on the Intelligence Committee? And is somebody who thinks so a good choice to head the House Democrats?

UPDATE:  Eugene Volokh comments:

In 1989 the Senate removed then-federal judge Hastings, convicting him of conspiracy to take a bribe and perjury; the Senate vote was 69-25, and on one of the counts the vote was 34-21 even among Democratic senators alone. Hastings had been acquitted at his criminal trial some years before, which is to say that he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But shouldn't the standard for deciding who'll be head of the Intelligence Committee be more than just seniority plus he hasn't been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

He seems like a poor choice to me, and if I were the Democrats, who have to be worried about national security as an election issue, I wouldn't be thinking about him for the position.

SDSU v. Cal Poly, and Other Sports

Argus Leader:

The sun setting in shades of pink over the mountains behind them, the South Dakota State Jackrabbits rallied from a 22-point deficit in the final eight minutes to earn a shocking 29-28 victory against No. 4-ranked Cal Poly in Great West Football Conference play Saturday at Alex G. Spanos Stadium.

Like the sunset, the victory was a thing of beauty.

"I thank God we won this game," said SDSU coach John Stiegelmeier, his club's fourth consecutive victory ending the Mustangs 10-game home win streak.

Divine intervention was perhaps the only explanation for how the Jackrabbits (4-3, 1-0) scored 23 points in 6 minutes, 50 seconds of the fourth quarter against Cal Poly (5-2, 2-1), which entered the game leading the NCAA Division I-AA in overall defense and scoring defense.

All three touchdowns in that span were thrown by quarterback Andy Kardoes and caught by JaRon Harris, the last coming with 1:05 to play. The Mustangs, fading away in front of 9,042 fans, called a timeout after the score, giving Kardoes enough time to sell Stiegelmeier on a change of plans on the point-after attempt.

Unfortunately, the Iowa Hawkeyes didn't have the same success yesterday.  Denver, coming off their win against the Oakland Raiders last week, go up against the Cleveland Browns today.  Jimmy Johnson starts ninth in today's race at Martinsville, and hopefully he can perform well there.

Russian Despotism

Washington Post: 

IT HAS NOW been 14 days since Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was murdered in Moscow. No one has been arrested for the crime, which is hardly surprising: None of the dozen other killings of journalists since Vladimir Putin became Russia's president has been solved. This one eliminated one of the fiercest and bravest critics of his government, a reporter who had tenaciously documented the depravity of Mr. Putin's war against Chechnya. We don't have any evidence implicating the Kremlin, but it's revealing to examine how Mr. Putin and his regime have behaved over the past few days.

The president's first reaction was a strange silence. While politicians, media outlets and statesmen in Russia and around the world condemned Ms. Politkovskaya's murder, no word came from Mr. Putin for three days. When finally compelled to speak, at a joint news conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Putin offered a rote condemnation of the attack. He then disparaged Ms. Politkovskaya, saying that "the level of her influence on political life in Russia was utterly insignificant." He made the ugly suggestion that foreign-based enemies of his government were somehow behind the killing -- a claim echoed in the state-controlled press. "We have information, and it is reliable, that many people hiding from Russian justice have long been nurturing the idea of sacrificing somebody in order to create a wave of anti-Russia feeling in the world," he said.

Really? If so, Mr. Putin's enemies also must have found a way to manipulate his own security forces.

Check it out.  It details some interesting facts.

A Thousand Points of Light in France

That thousand points takes about ten days, if you are talking about cars.  The London Times tells the story:

An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France so far this year and there have been 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services. Nearly 3,000 police officers have been injured in clashes this year. Officers have been badly injured in four ambushes in the Paris outskirts since September. Some police talk of open war with youths who are bent on more than vandalism.

“The thing that has changed over the past month is that they now want to kill us,” said Bruno Beschizza, the leader of Synergie, a union to which 40 per cent of officers belong. Action Police, a hardline union, said: “We are in a civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists.”

Car-burning has become so routine on the estates that it has been eclipsed in news coverage by the violence against police. Sebastian Roche, a sociologist who has published a book on the riots, said that torching a vehicle had become a standard amusement. “There is an apprenticeship of destruction. Kids learn where the petrol tank is, how to make a petrol bomb,” he told The Times.

That is what passes for normal among the Gauls.  There are two problems facing the developed world: how to assimilate immigrants, and how to deal with radical Islam.  Don't ask the French for advice on either problem. 

An Admirable Eppisode

I second my SDP colleague Master Heppler with regard to Todd Epp's post on South Dakota's very own Pagegate.  Master Epp locks horns with Professor David Newquist ( I know what that is like), and defends the South Dakota War College coverage of the accusations against State Senator Dan Sutton.  I was particularly fond of these Eppic paragraphs:

As to David and any other critics out there, you're welcome to your opinion and it might even be right.  But you can't have it both ways: do you want to know what goes on in Pierre with our legislators or don't you?  Do you have a right to know if there are investigations of our public officials or don't you?  You choose.   

But one thing is certain.  If you wait for the SD MSM to do the coverage, sometimes you may be waiting a very long time.

A lot of folks who complain about the media and secrecy in government don't really want the media to be more honest or the government to be more open.  They just the media to to say what they want to hear, and for government to release all the information and only the information that pads their own perspective. 

The blogosphere has indeed revolutionized political reporting.  It has done so by democratizing it, in the Greek sense of that word.  Anyone blogging from his basement (as I am in fact doing right now) can challenge the MSM.  And the MSM is frequently compelled to take notice and get its butt in gear.  Of course you are not going to always get from bloggers

the basic ingredients of verfication, meticulous citation of the facts, or statements from people involved that would be required in a legitimate news story.

In fact, you will often get

vague charges inflated by prurient innuendo and implication, and, of course, downright mean and trivial-nasty partisanship.

As someone working for a respectable newspaper might say, there goes the neighborhood.  Real democracy lets a lot of people speak up whose mud-stained overalls and coarse speech might displease your average English Professor.  And course your well-mannered professor, careful and moderate in his own writing, is right to want a more finished product in the end.  But maybe we want to get all the ingredients into the stew before we start trying to boil it down. 

South Dakota War College did an admirable job on this story, and Todd Epp is to be praised for pointing that out.